CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.285/2016
MR. GANGA BAHADUR
S/O SH. MATTE GURANG
R/O H.NO.149, HARI NAGAR ASHRAM,
JANGPURA, NEW DELHI-110014
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S MG MOBILES INDIA PVT. LTD.
SHOP NO.66, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI-110025
- M/S SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.
B-1, SECTOR 81, PHASE 2, NOIDA DISTRICT,
GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, U.P.
REGD. OFFICE:-
A-25, GROUND FLOOR, FRONT TOWER,
MOHAN COOPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
NEW DELHI-110044
- M/S SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.
2ND FLOOR, TOWER-C, VIPUL TECH SQUARE,
SECTOR 43, GOLF COURSE ROAD,
GURGAON (HARYANA)-122002
- M/S HCL SERVICES LTD.,
A-233, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-1,
NEW DELHI-110019
- M/S HOME CREDIT INDIA FINANCE PVT. LTD.
3RD FLOOR, DLF INFINITY TOWER-C,
DLF CYBER CITY PHASE-II, GURGAON(HARYANA)
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:09.07.2018
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav - President
OP-1 is an authorized seller of Samsung brand mobile phones, OP-2 is manufacturer, OP-3 is a Samsung Customer Satisfaction Centre, OP-4 is Authorized Service Centre of Samsung brand mobile phones, OP-5 is Authorized Financier of Samsung products. They are jointly and severally involved in selling and promoting Samsung brand mobile phones and products.
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone for a sum of Rs.13,000/- vide retail invoice dated 13.12.2015. It is stated that within two months of purchase i.e. on 08.02.2016, the said mobile phone started malfunctioning having the defects of jammed keys/buttons and sudden shut of. The phone was taken to the authorized service centre of OP on 16.02.2016 but authorized service centre after examining the mobile phone, asked the complainant to pay an estimated amount of Rs.11,463.08 for removal of defects. The complainant insisted on free service/repair as the defects arose during the period of warranty. Thereafter the complainant made several visits to the seller/dealer as well as the authorized service centre with the request either to replace the defective mobile or return the price but OP did not bother to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant. The complainant was constrained to send a legal notice dated 05.03.16, despite that nothing was done. Terming the action of OP as deficiency in service, the present complaint has been filed whereby the complainant has prayed for refund of the cost of the mobile phone and also sought compensation and litigation expenses.
OP-1 was proceeded ex parte.
OP-2 to OP-4 filed the reply and specifically stated that present complaint does not fall within definition of the ‘consumer dispute’ as the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in mobile phone in question or any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice being established against OPs. It is denied that after two months of purchase, the mobile phone started malfunctioning having the defects of jammed keys/buttons and sudden shut off. It is submitted that the complainant approached to OP-4 for the first time on 16.02.16 and reported the issue of jammed keys and sudden shut off. That as per the warranty entitlement the technician of OP-4 diagnosed the mobile and found that the said mobile was damaged and out of warranty due to liquid on PBA and the same was informed to the complainant. Therefore the complaint was given an estimate of Rs.11,436.08. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
We have gone through the case file carefully.
It is significant to note that in the job card it is specifically stated that the phone was inspected by engineer Ms Kanchan Pathak and during her inspection she found that CRACK/PATCH ON DISPLAY AND LIQUID ON PBA so DISPLAY+PBA+SUB KEYS is defective in the said unit for which repairing estimate of Rs.11436.08 was given.
The warranty clause clearly shows “out of warranty conditions & warranty void conditions”:-
- Defect due to misuse/third party repair attempts are not covered in warranty.
- Warranty does not cover defect due to external factors/mediums/data types.
- Warranty shall apply only if the product is used as per its usage specifications (example : personal, commercials etc.).
- Warranty shall be void if product has failed under certain conditions/types (example: water logging, misuse etc.).
It is evident from the inspection that the phone was damaged as there was crack/patch on display and liquid on PBA. So there was no manufacturing defect and the OP claimed for repair of the phone. The complainant failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the phone. The complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(RITU GARODIA) (H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
